and my response:
From: Geisert GySgt David C
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: Assault-gun posturing (Courier-Journal Daily Editorial for Friday, May 9, 2003)
The '94 assault weapon ban is poor and empty legislation. It uses strictly cosmetic features found on some rifle designs as a basis for discrimination. The fact that the affected rifles are operationally no different than their semiautomatic, self loading, made to look "sporting", brethren was completely ignored. Regardless of the outward appearance of the rifle, one pull of the trigger still only provides one round fired. True "assault weapons", those capable of firing multiple rounds of ammunition for each pull of the trigger, are already subject to the strict regulation of the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Are there benefits to having commercially available rifles that are really only ergonomically similar to the current U.S. armed forces service rifle? Yes! As a trainer for members of the military, I encourage my students to acquire just such a rifle, to foster the safe and effective use of their rifle by also using it in practice, competition and hunting (in many states, to include Kentucky, the caliber and action meets the requirements for hunting). The experience drawn from such activities builds confidence in their abilities and enhances their awareness of safety factors regarding their chosen activity. Additionally, the material advances that were researched, funded and developed by civilian competitors have also benefitted the military.
Those people intent on doing evil will not be influenced by the law. They will continue to do as they please with what ever tool they find. The DC sniper could have done more damage with Grandpa's old bolt action hunting rifle. Ammunition capacity, an attachment point for a knife, and whether or not the barrel had a particular kind of recoil compensator attached had no bearing on his actions (remember, each time, he fired a single round, from concealment, and didn't bayonet anybody). In the Case Western Reserve shooting, as is often the case, the most important element was that the killer had no resistance to his attack.
Why further bad legislation that has no impact on those who choose to ignore the law, or whose bad actions are not influenced by it?
Anybody up for offering some constructive criticism?
I can't find a link to their "letters to the editor" section online, so if a local happens to find it tomorrow in print, can you pass it on?
my response was less polite.
Excellent, well-reasoned response. Alas, you're probably pissing in the wind with those turds, but nice letter nonetheless.
Edit-- And here's my reply just sent to the bozos:
People are certainly entitled to their opinion, but an opinion based on misconceptions, falsehoods, bad data, and poorly drawn deductions is not very helpful and has no place gracing the pages of a news organ. Whoever wrote the editorial titled "Assault-gun posturing" seems to have done most of their research by watching bad movies such as "Exit Wounds" with Steven Segal.
The only difference between "legal" and "illegal" semi-auto "assault" style rifles are certain cosmetic features. Among these are the ability to mount a bayonet, the presence of a flash hider, and the presence of a collapsible stock. Surely you can grasp that bayonets do not and have not ever contributed greatly to crime statistics. How about a flash hider? It serves to prevent the shooter of a rifle from being blinded by his/her own muzzle flash in low light conditions. I know banning these has had a dramatic impact on gun-related crime-- yeah, right.
As for the argument that these rifles have no legitimate sporting uses, once again the correct retort is "humbug." They are used for hunting. They are used in target shooting competitions. They are used by thousands of law abiding Americans who like to go to a rifle range on a Saturday morning and punch holes in a paper target 100 yards away. Not very evil, and not very illegitimate, wouldn't you say?
As for drug dealers and other criminals, why be concerned with what type of weapons they prefer? You can ban guns until you are blue in the face and have no impact on these individuals. They are criminals, remember, they don't feel terribly compelled to obey laws. Only honest citizens who would not break the law to begin with are going to honor a weapon ban. So, can you draw the simple and obvious conclusion staring you in the face here? BANNING GUNS HAS NO IMPACT ON GUN CRIME.
And if you don't believe me, look at the government's own conclusions. A 1999 Justice Department study commissioned to determine the effect of the Clinton 1994 Assault Weapons Ban concluded that it had NO impact on gun-related violence. NONE. ZERO. NADA.
I suppose guns are somewhat like snakes. Some people see them and immediately degenerate into screaming, hysterical, non-thinking blobs of protoplasm. Which describes most liberal Democrats, don't you think?
I'll keep an eye out for your letters to the editor of the C-J and if printed will let you know.
Heck I'll even send you a copy of the paper (gee, ain't I genereous[:D] )
Originally Posted By marvl:
...Whoever wrote the editorial titled "Assault-gun posturing" seems to have done most of their research by watching bad movies such as "Exit Wounds" with Steven Segal...
LOL Marvl, are you suggesting that Jayson Blair and the The New York Times staff wrote it?